The Declaration of Independance refers to the united States while the Constitution uses the phrase United States, with a capital 'U'. The Ariticles of Confederation and the Continental Congress epitomize a united States of America with a true "limited" central government, while the Constitution envisions a United States of America with much broader, but not limitless, powers given to the central government. Which form of government do you think today's Conservatives actually believe in?
sort by best latest
It seems you are confusing Conservatives and Republicans...most Rpublicans are not Conservatives, or at least not conservative enough...
A trueConservative/Libertarian would be consistent across ALL laws, Departments etc..Amendment X...
You are quite right, Mitch, Conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing anymore and I wish Conservatives would form their own party so that I could rejoin the Party of Abraham Lincoln once more.
I wish there were more true Conservatives in the party so there could be a stronger point of difference between the parties...mostly we have two parties fighting over who can run an unConstitutional government and it's programs "better".
That is because that is the proper order...personal, local, State and then federal except where specified explicitly in the Constitution.
Yes, that was assumed in my question, but do conservatives think the 'u' in united States of the Declaration of Independence remain uncapitalized, which signfizes one thing, or capitalized as in the Constitution, which means something different?
The capitalization of the S in States is far more important...the Constitution was set up to limit the federal government that the States were granting certain limit powers to. We were meant to be a federation of States united...
Disagree. There was a reason the creators of the Constitution, who were extremely careful with nuance, chose to use a "U", rather than a "u"; for it changes the meaning entirely as your comments clealy point out. I get the feeling you want a 'u'.
Yes, one of the main reasons for the Constitution and the bill of rights was to limit the federal government in both size and scope... and as a supporter of the Constitution and one who sees the value and reasons behind that idea...I am a "u" and "S"
OK, now we are getting somewhere. The group of founders who wrote the Constitution were a 'U' and 'S' set of founders. The ones who wrote the Articles of Confederation were a 'u' and 'S' set. The 'U' and 'S' group won the ratification battle.
Yes, the Constitution more clearly DEFINES the federal government then did the Articles of Confederation, but it is still a LIMITING document. The "U" was used to show a unitary, but n ot a totalitar
Yes,that is one way of looking at it, I prefer a more common meaning of "all together". We have a hub,I posted all this at https://hubpages.com/politics/What-is-the-Differen...
Sorry, phone messed up my spelling etc..."U" for unity, not undistinguishable. The "Dept of Blank" is over-reaching. The founders wanted a STRUCTURED, but LIMITED federal government for the common defense and good of the States, but still STATES.
Just one point - the only reason states isn't capitalized is because our modern rules of grammar didn't exist at the time. It's a reflection of the Germanic roots of the English language, where nouns were routinely capitalized.
Angie, States is capitalized...the question is about the word united/United being capitalized.
Angie, I have to agree with Mitch, the phrase is "We the People of the United States..." and later on you find the words "... more perfect Union ...". I think the capitalization is for emphasis by creating proper nouns, rather than correct grammer.
Sorry - typo. My point, though, is that States isn't capitalized for symbolism or to indicate a desire for soveriegnty. It's just grammar. If the founders hadn't felt stronger central govt was needed, we'd still use Articles of Confederation.
That one I buy, Angie, thanks.
Strong, as in well defined and capable of executing it's limited powers for the benefit of the Union...yes.
Strong, so as to take over the soveriegn powers of these (plural) United State...No.
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Then you don't agree with the change from the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress (what you described) to the Constitution (with its Supremacy Clause) and the United States of America , do I have that right?
The "Supremacy Clause" is only valid if the Congress is acting within it's Constitutionally authorized and enumerated powers. Why then have States (and individuals), if they are not protected by the Constitution and specifically the 10th amendment?
Agreed Mitch, but the writers purposely left the interpretation vague, not exact. Madison made sure of that when he kept the word "explicitly" or its synonyms out of the 10th. He didn't want what you want, a literal interpretation of Article 8.
The text of the 10th Amendment is pretty straight forward and clear, "The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED TO the States respectively, or to the people." (emphasis mine)
There were those who wanted the wording of the 10th to be ""The powers NOT "explicitly" delegated ..."; thereby tying the meaning to the "exact" wording in the 8th. Madison removed the word "explicitly" so that the wording in the 8th can be implied.